Skip to content

Tesla loses Autopilot wrongful death case in $329 million verdict

Technology
176 97 3
  • A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

    So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

    Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    "Some of you will die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."

  • I mean, that's probably strictly true.

    its really not, we just have cowards who are afraid of the word regulation running the government.

  • Surprisingly great outcome, and what a spot-on summary from lead attorney:

    "Tesla designed autopilot only for controlled access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," said Brett Schreiber, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "Tesla’s lies turned our roads into test tracks for their fundamentally flawed technology, putting everyday Americans like Naibel Benavides and Dillon Angulo in harm's way. Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries, holding Tesla and Musk accountable for propping up the company’s trillion-dollar valuation with self-driving hype at the expense of human lives," Schreiber said.

    Holding them accountable would be jail time. I'm fine with even putting the salesman in jail for this. Who's gonna sell your vehicles when they know there's a decent chance of them taking the blame for your shitty tech?

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    Well, the Obama administration had published initial guidance on testing and safety for automated vehicles in September 2016, which was pre-regulatory but a prelude to potential regulation. Trump trashed it as one of the first things he did taking office for his first term. I was working in the AV industry at the time.

    That turned everything into the wild west for a couple of years, up until an automated Uber killed a pedestrian in Arizona in 2018. After that, most AV companies scaled public testing way back, and deployed extremely conservative versions of their software. If you look at news articles from that time, there's a lot of criticism of how, e.g., Waymos would just grind to a halt in the middle of intersections, as companies would rather take flak for blocking traffic than running over people.

    But not Tesla. While other companies dialed back their ambitions, Tesla was ripping Lidar sensors off its vehicles and sending them back out on public roads in droves. They also continued to market the technology - first as "Autopilot" and later as "Full Self Driving" - in ways that vastly overstated its capabilities. To be clear, Full Self Driving, or Level 5 Automation in the SAE framework, is science fiction at this point, the idea of a computer system functionally indistinguishable from a capable human driver. Other AV companies are still striving for Level 4 automation, which may include geographic restrictions or limitations to functioning on certain types of road infrastructure.

    Part of the blame probably also lies with Biden, whose DOT had the opportunity to address this and didn't during his term. But it was Trump who initially trashed the safety framework, and Telsa that concealed and mismarketed the limitations of its technology.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    "Ya gotta break some eggs," or some shit. /s

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    Not to defend Tesla here, but how does the technology become "good and well ready" for road testing if you're not allowed to test it on the road? There are a million different driving environments in the US, so it'd be impossible to test all these scenarios without a real-world environment.

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    Listen, if we make it safe it could take an entire extra fiscal year! I have payments to make on my 3 vacation homes NOW!

  • Yes. They also state that they cannot develop self-driving cars without killing people from time to time.

    All they really need to do is make self-driving cars safer than your average human driver.

  • I don't know, most experimental technologies aren't allowed to be tested in public till they are good and well ready. This whole move fast break often thing seems like a REALLY bad idea for something like cars on public roads.

    I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

  • A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

    So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

    "Today’s verdict is wrong"
    I think a certain corporation needs to be reminded to have some humility toward the courts
    Corporations should not expect the mercy to get away from saying the things a human would

  • Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

    Did the car try to stop and fail to do so in time due to the speeding, or did the car not try despite expected collision detection behavior?

    Going off of OP's quote, the jury found the driver responsible but Tesla is found liable, which is pretty confusing. It might make some sense if expected autopilot functionality despite the drivers foot being on the pedal didn't work.

  • Not to defend Tesla here, but how does the technology become "good and well ready" for road testing if you're not allowed to test it on the road? There are a million different driving environments in the US, so it'd be impossible to test all these scenarios without a real-world environment.

    You are defending Tesla and being disingenuous about it.

    The other car companies working on this are spending millions of dollars to test their vehicles in closed areas that simulate real world conditions in order to not kill people.

    You sound like a psychopath.

  • Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.

    I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.

    There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.

    Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.

    So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.

    I feel like calling it AutoPilot is already risking liability, Full Self Driving is just audacious. There's a reason other companies with similar technology have gone with things like driving assistance. This has probably had lawyers at Tesla sweating bullets for years.

  • "Some of you will die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."

    Brannigan is way smarter than Mush.

  • Holding them accountable would be jail time. I'm fine with even putting the salesman in jail for this. Who's gonna sell your vehicles when they know there's a decent chance of them taking the blame for your shitty tech?

    Don't you love how corporations can be people when it comes to bribing politicians but not when it comes to consequences for their criminal actions? Interestingly enough, the same is happening to AI...

  • I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

    And we're having less and less deadly injured people on developed countries (excluding the USA, if the statistics are correct I've read).

    Tesla's autopilot seems to be a step backwards with a future promise of being better than human drivers.

    But they slimmed down their sensors to fucking simple 2D cams.
    That's just cheaping out on the cost of Tesla owners - but also of completely uninvolved people around a self driving Tesla, that didn't take the choice to trust this tech, that's living more on PR, than actual results

  • I'm pretty sure millions of people have been killed by cars over the last 100 years.

    Cars, yes, driven by humans. But not by AI bullshit.

  • And we're having less and less deadly injured people on developed countries (excluding the USA, if the statistics are correct I've read).

    Tesla's autopilot seems to be a step backwards with a future promise of being better than human drivers.

    But they slimmed down their sensors to fucking simple 2D cams.
    That's just cheaping out on the cost of Tesla owners - but also of completely uninvolved people around a self driving Tesla, that didn't take the choice to trust this tech, that's living more on PR, than actual results

    Can't comment specifically about Tesla's but self driving is going to have to go through the same decades of iterative improvement that car safety went through. Thats just expected

    However its not appropriate for this to be done at the risk to lives.

    But somehow it needs the time and money to run through a decade of improvement

  • Holding them accountable would be jail time. I'm fine with even putting the salesman in jail for this. Who's gonna sell your vehicles when they know there's a decent chance of them taking the blame for your shitty tech?

    You'd have to prove that the salesman said exactly that, and without a record it's at best a he said / she said situation.

    I'd be happy to see Musk jailed though, he's definitely taunted self driving as fully functional.

  • 4 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    S
    What if I'm an adult and I happen to like Taylor Swift reaction videos damn it?
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 9 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    J
    Oh yeah, history has a habit of siding with tyrannical fuckwits like ALL THE TIME, you dumb fucking literal dickhead. Your head actually looks like a penis.
  • Software is evolving backwards

    Technology technology
    64
    1
    341 Stimmen
    64 Beiträge
    631 Aufrufe
    M
    Came here looking for this
  • Using Signal groups for activism

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    204 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    327 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    You're using a messaging app that was built with the express intent of being private and encrypted. Yes. You're asking why you can't have a right to privacy when you use your real name as your display handle in order to hide your phone number. I didn't ask anything. I stated it definitively. If you then use personal details as your screen name, you can't get mad at the app for not hiding your personal details. I've already explained this. I am not mad. I am telling you why it's a bad product for activism. Chatting with your friends and clients isn't what this app is for. That's...exactly what it's for. And I don't know where you got the idea that it's not. It's absurd. Certainly Snowden never said anything of the sort. Signal themselves never said anything of the sort. There are other apps for that. Of course there are. They're varying degrees of not private, secure, or easy to use.
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    223 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 88 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    291 Aufrufe
    J
    The self hosted model has hard coded censored content.
  • 51 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    131 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    It is a possibility. Thanks for the input!